Research Paper 2 First Draft

Radhames Guzman
Eng 101.0800
Miss B
November 29, 2010

Research Paper #2 – Double binds and Double Standards

The term masculinity is a topic that is greatly deliberated among society. Many people have their own views on what it means to be masculine. Focusing now on men masculinity, men are bind by this aspect of “double bind masculinity”. This means that men are focused on a personality that defines them to be masculine. These personalities are mainly focused on the gentlemen and beast aspect which define masculinity. There are men who obtain both these personalities for themselves and other who only obtain one of the two. However, this affects their masculine role as a man with whichever personality is chosen. Men need to have this double bind of masculinity to function properly in society. Without the double bind, men would not have self-balance within a relationship and men would not develop specific attitudes and behaviors that could benefit them if they have it.

Some say that these double binds of masculinity are achieved at a very young age through child development within the family. The term gentleman refers to men who are nice, polite, respectful, and well-mannered. The term beast refers to men who are aggressive, rough, powerful, and ill mannered. Men who have only the gentleman aspect are seen to be more feminine which can affect their manliness. Men who are completely beastly are seen to be way to rough and not sensitive enough to handle a social relationship with the opposite sex. [1st Open QUOTE] [1st Close QUOTE][Explain Quote] [Give example] Young men are taught these double standards by their mom and dad. The mother teaches the child to be sensitive, caring, and kind to others along with manners. The father teaches the child to play sports, interest in cars, and women in general. With both of these skills, the young man turns into an adult with double binds. Having this double bind will give the man a self-balance approach to women which will make him more attractive. Society will view him sophisticated enough to be manly along with being athletic and sporty to support what skills men are supposed to have to be viewed as manly.

Along with early childhood, it is to believe that men with this double bind of masculinity are stuck in a process during their adolescence and early adulthood that relates to hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity describes men who are powerful, aggressive, and dominant.[2nd Open Quote] [2nd Close Quote] [Explain quote] [Give example]
PARAGRAPH NOT DONE

Men reputation is a big factor when referring to the double bind of masculinity. Some say that men choose to act certain sometimes because of how society will see them. This affects what they say or do when men are around other men and women. [2nd Open Quote] [2nd Close Quote][Explain quote] [Give example] Peers will see men to be aggressive, sporty, and athletic. Men who are chasing women have to abide by double standards so that it doesn’t affect one another. In other words, when men are dating women, they are bind to act a certain way around them so it won’t affect their relationship and when men are around guy friends/peers, they are bind to act a different way so it won’t affect their man reputation. Through this, men need both the gentlemen aspect for women and the beastly aspect for men to obtain this self-balance so that each group would not judge men.

Works Cited

Bordo, Susan. “Gentleman or Beast? The Double Bind of Masculinity.” The Male Body: A New Look At Men in Public and In Private. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999. 242-264. Print.

Lindeggar, Graham, and Justin Maxwell. “Teenage masculinity: the double bind of conformity to hegemonic standards.” From Boys to Men: Social constructions of masculinity in comtemporary society. Eds. T Shefer, K Ratele, A Strebel, N Shabalala, and R Buikema. South Africa, 2007 UCT Press Juta & Company Ltd 94-111. Print

Bogle, Kathleen A. “Men, Women, and the Sexual Double Standard.” Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New York University Press, 2008. 96 128. Print.